Reflection: My GAME Plan Process

As we draw near to the end of this course, I am reminded of where I started seven weeks ago.  I created a plan that would allow me to become responsible for locating learning opportunities and tasks to meet my technology goals (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009).  This GAME plan focused on setting goals, taking action to meet those goals, monitoring my progress, evaluating whether I had achieved my goals, and extending my learning to new situations (Cennamo et al., 2009).  The goals that I chose to focus on related to the International Society for Technology in Education NETS, or standards, for educators (ISTE, 2008).  The first goal I set for myself was focused on finding one new “tech tool”, program, or website each day that I can become familiar with and use to enhance instruction and transfer knowledge.  My second goal centered on engaging in professional growth by becoming a leader amongst my colleagues and by expanding my learning community.

Do I feel that I was able make progress on my goals through the use of the GAME plan during the past two months?  Absolutely.  I have been able to keep a spreadsheet of the technology tools I have discovered and used throughout this course.  I was able to add to my list almost every day – through the daily technology ideas presented by Dr. LeBeau, our weekly resources, and through my own exploration.  And not only was I able to log these tools, I was able to test them and decide their appropriateness for my students.  Doing so has given me ideas and tools that will carry me through this school year and beyond.  By writing and implementing lessons that incorporated problem-based learning, social networking/online collaboration, and digital storytelling, I was able to make further progress on my GAME plan, while enriching the content I was tackling with my students.  I will continue to modify and add to my list as the school year goes on.

Becoming a leader through technology collaboration has been, and will continue to be a goal that requires frequent monitoring on my behalf.  If I do not work to reach out to colleagues (both down the hall and around the world) in order to extend my learning, it will not be possible.  Over the past few weeks, I have been given the opportunity to present technology tools to the colleagues in my program (K-12 teachers for students with multiple disabilities) during our quarterly teacher meeting in January.  I am incredibly excited and empowered by this opportunity and plan on sharing the “Tech Tools” spreadsheet that I created to meet the needs of my first GAME plan goal.  Next week, I will be part of an iPad app training in my middle school building, where I not only will be learning about new apps, I will be able to share my experience with the apps I am currently using with my students with special needs.  Becoming the educational technology leader that I want to be will take more time, but keeping the steps of the GAME plan in mind will ensure continued success in this area.  Keeping up to date with the field of educational technology through subscription to Ed Tech blogs (particularly those related to special education) has also helped to give me a clearer perspective and model for connecting and collaborating with other educators via the Internet.

In addition to having a continued focus on these goals through use of the GAME plan, I have also begun to think about the ways in which this process can be used in the classroom with my students.  Because of the needs of my students, I may begin with having them focus on one goal at a time, all in relation to technology.  As a class, we could choose one tool/website/app that we would like to learn more about.  Once we have chosen a goal, our class can spend a few minutes each day, whether embedded into a lesson or in isolation, to look at the tool we are using.  Once students are familiar with the tool, I can give them the opportunity to work with it on their own, carefully monitoring its appropriateness and value for learning.  I can also give my students the opportunity to “rate” the tool, based on a simply yes/no survey.  In addition to these daily “tech tool” goals, I would also like to set more extensive goals for my students (such as learning how to use PowerPoint).  In both of these scenarios, the GAME plan process can be modified to meet their needs and lead them to a successful learning experiences.

While the first few weeks of this course focused on the development, implementation, and monitoring of my GAME plan, we shifted our focus to specific technology tools that could help us meet the goals of our these plans.  After the creation of my unit plan, which centered on social studies (economics), I saw the benefits and success of integrating three technology tools - problem-based learning, social networking/online collaboration, and digital storytelling - into three separate lessons.  Seeing how seamlessly these tools can be integrated into any lesson was incredible.  I was also amazed at how my students with significant special needs were able to access these tools in meaningful and powerful ways.  Because I teach all content areas in my self-contained classroom, I am confident that I will continue to use these tools across disciplines.  After observing the motivating qualities and learning depth that was experienced by my students, I can see myself working harder to ensure I do all that I can to integrate technology into every lesson.  Through the use of the GAME plan process, I will be able to keep my skills aligned with the ever-changing field of technology, and better meet the needs of my students... today and in the future (Cennamo et al., 2009).

References

Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National education standards for teachers (NETS-T). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers

Monitoring my GAME Plan Process

 As I embark upon the third week of implementing my self-directed learning plan, I want to also focus on the third step of the GAME plan process.  The “M” in this process stands for Monitoring – in terms of looking at the actions we chosen to help us meet our goals.  In my last post, I mentioned some of the tools and strategies I planned on utilizing to address two specific goals.  My first goal (Standard 3) is to better exhibit the knowledge, skills, and work processes of someone in a digital society (International Society for Technology in Education [ITSE], 2008).  My second goal (Standard 5) is to improve my practice by engaging in professional growth and leadership opportunities (ITSE, 2008).

In working towards Standard 3, I have sought out resources that will provide me with better knowledge of the tech tools that I already have in my classroom, as well as those I would like to introduce.  This week, I created a spreadsheet that allows me to track the tools and resources that I locate.  This spreadsheet allows me to list the resources I find (iPad app, website, etc.) and where I located the resource (from a colleague, professional blog, etc.).  Once I am able to test out or utilize the resource for myself or with my students, there is an area to type in a brief description of how I can use the tool in my classroom, and if it will support the learning goals that I have set forth.  I also plan to ask questions from a TechPudding blog post (techpudding.com) where I found a checklist for evaluating tech tools, apps, hardware, and software.  I love that their checklist also includes asking oneself if the tool in question follows the principles of UDL (the Universal Design for Learning)!  Price, usability, and accessibility are also key factors to consider when looking at resources for my students with special needs.  In addition to creating my tech checklist, I have been able to explore a few resources this week during the “tech time” I set aside at the end of one school day per week.  After an observation this week by my supervisor, she gave me the name of a virtual learning environment site/software called Moodle, and asked that I check it out.  She asked for my feedback on future use of this tool for our county-run programs for students with autism and multiple disabilities.  I felt so empowered and honored that she wanted my opinion, and excited to be given a tech tool to add to my spreadsheet.  I was also able to look into Google Drive, which was recommended to me by a member of our Walden cohort, as a way to store, access, and share documents.  These resources were just a few of the tech tools that I was presented with this week.  I also found numerous ideas and tools via the tech blogs that I follow.  When monitoring this goal for myself, I was able to look at my spreadsheet and say, “yes, I am finding the resources I need”… and more!  I don’t feel that this area of my plan needs to be modified just yet, but I do think that I need to start jotting down technology questions/concerns that I have in order to narrow the scope of the resources that I am in search of.  Finding tools to help with my immediate needs, as well as those of my students, should be at the forefront of my research.  With this in mind, I have added a column to my spreadsheet where I can list exactly what tools I am looking for on a daily/weekly basis.

Standard 5 focuses on my goal of engaging in more professional growth and collaboration opportunities – particularly those that relate directly integrating technology in the classroom.  At our weekly special education meeting, I asked if it was possible that each week we all bring one tech tool or site to share with the group.  I also suggested using Google Docs to create a spreadsheet where we could all share and add new resources throughout the school year.  My colleagues agreed that this would be a simple, yet helpful way to share with one another.  I am hoping that I can also get our technology teacher onboard with adding resources to our Google Doc.  I was also excited this week, following my aforementioned observation, to be able to again discuss being given the time to talk about technology with my program colleagues at our quarterly teacher meetings.  With all of our classrooms having iPads, SMART Boards, and newly subscribed-to curriculum resources (like the web-based Reading and Science A to Z), I would love this opportunity!  Our next meeting is in January, so I would have plenty of time to sort through and decide on the resources that work best for our classrooms for students with multiple disabilities. 

After just a few short weeks, I feel like I am on the right path to meeting my goals.  I feel like I have been able to find many beneficial and applicable resources from talking to colleagues, as well as by doing my own web research.  Having an organized way to monitor and evaluate the tools I find will help me to hone in on what will truly be the best tools for my students with special needs.  I hope to look into more ways in which I can participate in global discussion with educators about technology, in venues outside of what I am used to.  Every day, I find that I am faced with new questions about how technology can improve teaching and learning in my school and classroom.   I have also learned that although technology is all around us, finding exactly what is required to meet our technology needs can sometimes be a challenge.  By searching in a more organized and thought-out way, as well as staying in consistent, technology-driven dialogue with other professionals, I hope to continue on my path toward life-long, self-directed learning. 

Monitoring my goals involves reflecting upon the strategies I have chosen to meet these goals (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009).  Any thoughts on ways I could improve upon this process would be much appreciated. 

References

Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National education standards for teachers (NETS-T). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers

Carrying Out My GAME Plan

My last post described two technology standards (NETs) that I want to focus on in order to improve my technology skills both in and out of the classroom.  My first goal (Standard 3) is to better exhibit the knowledge, skills, and work processes of someone in a digital society (International Society for Technology in Education [ITSE], 2008).  My second goal (Standard 5) is to improve my practice by engaging in professional growth and leadership opportunities (ITSE, 2008).  In order to follow a sequential and self-directed path to working on these goals, I have decided to follow the four-step, GAME plan approach that was outlined in our course text.  The GAME plan will enable me to customize my approach to learning tasks and developing the relevant skills that will help me to reach my goals, while preparing for lifelong learning (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009).

The first step in the GAME plan involves goal setting, for which the groundwork has already been laid.  The second step of the game plan, the “A”, requires one to take action, which for me involves looking at the resources and information I will need to meet my goal.  For this step, I will also be choosing the learning strategies I plan to implement, once I have all of the necessary tools in order to do so.

For Standard 3, I will be looking for resources that will better allow me to understand the different types of technology that are available, and that would be directly beneficial to my classroom.  YouTube tutorials, educational technology blogs, and further review of Walden resources (i.e. Dr. LeBeau’s “Tech it Out” tools, resources discussed in our text/media segments), will give me a great start in locating tools that I can delve into more deeply.  I also need to make sure I set aside the time to work with these resources in order to find out if they are truly something I can use in my classroom.  I also plan to use digital tools to further collaborate and communicate with my colleagues, students, and parents.  Discovering ways to update my classroom website, sharing via blogging, and finding out how to utilize newer social media outlets would also lead me a step in the right direction.  The more I do to locate and test out new types of technology, the more success I will have in finding resources that will best suit my needs.  This week, I decided to switch my old classroom website format (I have a website that is linked to our county’s education service center) to a new (and more exciting!) format through the free website tool Weebly.  To further tailor this goal to also meet the needs of my students, I will continue to search for interactive, visually-oriented learning tools.  Following special education technology blogs ("Teaching All Students" by Patrick Black is one of my favorites) has provided me with a wealth of resources that I have been able to try out with my students.  It is critical that I am familiar with the resources I utilize in order to incorporate them successfully and smoothly into my lessons.  The goal of technology is to enhance my instruction, not hinder it.

For Standard 5, I am hoping to have the opportunity to participate in more technology-focused learning communities.  Have my Walden cohort has been an invaluable resource from day one.  I am able to share my technology knowledge and resources, and receive immediate feedback and suggestions.  While this collaboration has been a great tool for improving my practice, it has not necessarily allowed me to exhibit leadership skills in the school setting.  In order to become more of a technology facilitator, leader, and “go-to” person within my special education program and school, I need to seek out resources that will address some of the concerns/issues that fellows teachers and I face on a daily basis.  Reaching out to those who have technology blogs (and in particular, special education and technology blogs), may provide me with the tools needed to introduce new ideas to those around me.  Asking for time to address fellow staff members at meetings in order to get their tech concerns/questions/etc. will provide me with a jumping-off point for research on the more specific resources needed to make our school an effective and technology-driven learning environment.  Social media, such as Twitter or Facebook, could also provide an outlet for asking/answering questions and providing support to educators on a global level.  The tools available for collaboration with other educators are virtually endless!  It is now my goal to find out the most effective way I can collaborate with other educators both in and out of the classroom.  Since my last blog post, I have been able to talk with my program director about incorporating technology components into our quarterly meetings.  We discussed the possibility of me assisting with the tech concerns of my colleagues (seven total), as well as going over any new technologies that will be beneficial for us all.  I would also like to spend time going over iPad apps (we all were provided with iPads at the end of last school year) that would be motivating and accommodating for our students with special needs.  This opportunity has both empowered and excited me!  I can’t wait to start looking for resources that I will be able to share with my colleagues.

Throughout each week of this course, I hope to strengthen my confidence and proficiency in regards to technology by following my GAME plan and seeking out the advice and support of my colleagues.  Any input on resources that will help me to do so is much appreciated!

References

Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National education standards for teachers (NETS-T). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers

Developing My Personal GAME Plan

Self-directed learning provides teachers with the opportunity to grow both professionally and professionally.  We are often engaging in this type of learning without even realizing it – through the creation and teaching of our lesson plans, to the monitoring of ourselves and our students throughout the process (Laureate Education Inc., 2010b).  In order to continuously improve our practice, as well as provide students with new and innovative ways to use technology, teachers must always have goals in mind for taking learning to the next level.   A process like the GAME plan (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009) holds teachers accountable for setting these goals and following them through to success.

The International Society for Technology in Education, ISTE, (2008) has created NETS, or standards, for teachers in order to evaluate the “skills and knowledge educators need to teach, work, and learn in an increasingly connected global and digital society”.  When looking at the five standards listed, along with their objectives, it is clear that I am more familiar and comfortable with some me than I am with others.  Being able to integrate technology in the classroom requires confidence (Laureate Education Inc., 2010a), which gives me the motivation to set goals for working on the NETS that may not currently be my areas of strength.

The first standard that I would like to focus on is standard three – modeling digital-age work and learning.  Before I entered into my graduate program, I used typical technology integration strategies in my classroom.  The SMART Board, Google, and iPad apps were utilized on a daily basis, with activities modified to meet the needs of my students with special needs.  I did not have my own blog or my own classroom website, and most of the activities and interactive books I used on the SMART Board were pre-made.  When I look at how far I have come in the last year, I am proud of my accomplishments, but see that there is much more progress to be made.  My goal for this NET is to work on finding one new “tech tool”, program, or website a week that I can become familiar with and use to enhance instruction and transfer knowledge.  I will set aside time after school or at home, two to three times each week (even if it is only a few minutes) in order to familiarize myself with the new technology.  I will then log the name of the technology, as well as the pros, cons, etc. for using it with my students.  This log will help me to monitor my progress, as well as document the steps I have taken along the way.  I can then choose a time frame (one month, one quarter, etc.) at the end of which I will go back and see which of these tools I have used in the classroom, which ones I haven’t, and which ones I need to learn more about.  I can also share my findings through my professional blog or with colleagues.  I can even work to collaborate globally with special educators to support the research and learning of tools for students with special needs.

The second standard I would like to focus on is engaging in professional growth and leadership.  Because I am the only teacher in my building that teaches a classroom for students with multiple disabilities, it can often be a challenge to collaborate on a meaningful level.  During weekly grade level and content area meetings, I often feel I have very little to contribute to the conversation.  When I do meet with other MD teachers (4 times a year through our county-run program), there is often not enough time to discuss technology during our meetings.  Because of my Walden experience, I feel I am able to satisfy much of my desire to collaborate and communicate in regards technology.  However, I am worried that when I complete my program, I will no longer have the discussions that I currently am able to engage in on a daily basis with my Walden cohort.  This is why this particular NET means so much to me.  I want to be able to step up and become a leader amongst teachers in my building, as well those who teach in similar settings.  I also want to expand my learning community and make it a global one.

In working on this NET, using the GAME plan will set me on the right path – ensuring that I follow through on my goal and hold myself accountable along the way.  My goals are to be able to share and model new technologies (that I have researched and used in my own classroom) with others in my program.  I would like to be able to share and receive feedback from my colleagues, while being self-directed in my search to find technologies that will benefit our students with significant special needs.  Now that all of our classrooms have SMART Boards and iPads, the tools are in place for us all to utilize technology to the fullest extent possible.  I am able to take action right away by contacting my supervisor in order to make sure that I will have time at our next meeting to discuss technology.  I will email fellow colleagues to find out their technology needs/challenges/questions, etc., so that I can work on an agenda to tackle in preparation for our next meeting.  The way I will monitor myself in working on this goal will be to make a list of all content areas (since we all teach every subject) and teacher concerns, and work to locate technology tools that can meet these needs, as well as tools that can be used for all grade levels (we serve students in grades K-12+).  Once I have located resources and solutions to teacher technology issues, I will utilize these tools in my own classroom.  Being able to navigate through the resources will allow me to evaluate what I have found and extend the learning to my colleagues at our next meeting.  Being able to give technology input at each of our meetings will force me to stay accountable to learning and experimenting with new tools that can benefit my colleagues and I.  The cycle can continue through each school year, as new technologies emerge, and new questions/concerns arise.

I am hoping that through the use of the GAME plan, I will be able to strengthen and become more proficient in these technology standards.  I would appreciate any input, ideas, or resources you may have in order to help me do so. 

Cennamo et al. (2009) offer this perspective:

“As we lead the way and break new ground in the world of technology integration, self-directed learning will be essential.  You and your peers have the opportunity to be leaders in these efforts!” (p.19)

 

References

Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National education standards for teachers (NETS-T). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010a). Enriching content area learning:  Part one. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010b). Promoting self-directed learning with technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Hello!  I am excited to be back to blogging again for my newest Grad course - Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas.  I'm also looking forward to engaging in positive and practice-enhancing conversations with all of you!  Talk to you soon... :)

Reflection: How can I effectively and appropriately integrate technology in my classroom?

As this course, Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology, comes to a close, it is important to reflect upon what I have learned, as well as how my prior ideals may have changed due to this new knowledge.  Looking back at the personal theory of learning that I developed during the first week of this class, I still feel that I my focus should be on creating a student-centered environment where my students can construct knowledge.  The holistic view that I held also looked at how the environment, technology, and instructional strategies all interact in support of the learner.  Being a reflective educator was another key point that I discussed in my previous theory of learning.  My personal theory still has the same basic focus.  However, after this class, I feel that I now have the tools, strategies, and research-based learning theories that strongly support this stance.  Prior to this class, I had no idea the impact technology and the strategies we use have on what goes in our students’ brains during the learning process.  Brain research facilitates a shift in focus from teaching to learning (Laureate Education Inc., 2011c).  Following this class, I feel that I can truly begin to understand how to make my classroom more supportive of learning.

The most important piece of information that I have taken away from this course in regards to instruction focuses on using technology in order to truly make the classroom a learner-centered environment.  It has always been easy for me to integrate technology during my instruction – using tools like the SMART Board – in order to present and impart knowledge.  But technology needs to be more than an instructional tool.  We need to allow our students to use technology in order to become responsible for their own learning (Laureate Education Inc., 2011d).  One of the key learning theories that was focused on throughout this class was the constructionist theory.  This theory is based upon student construction of an “artifact”, in order to create meaning through experience.  I have learned that it is my role to become a facilitator in this type of environment.  My job is to guide students through the learning process (Orey, 2001).  When working with students with significant special needs, I sometimes forget to step back and allow my students to problem-solve and come up with their own solutions to problems.  By not allowing them to create and discover on their own, I am doing them a disservice.  I now know that providing them with multiple strategies for tackling real-world applications (Orey, 2001) will help them to engage in the authentic tasks that are critical to their future independence and success in a technology-driven society.

There are tools that I was able to become familiar with during this course that I can definitely see introducing into my own lessons.  I enjoyed learning how to use VoiceThread and know that it would be a positive social learning and collaborative tool to use with my students.  VoiceThread allows students to create a visual artifact, support it through audio and text, and communicate with others through their thread.  It also supports social constructionism by allowing students to create meaning through interactions with others (Orey, 2001).   I would also like to have my students participate in more cooperative learning experiences, using tools like Skype (or Face Time on the iPad) and webquests.  Because my students have social and communication needs, it is crucial that I provide ample opportunities for social interaction.  Cooperative learning holds true to having students actively involved in the learning process, but also promotes positive attitudes and a social support system, all in an encouraging environment (Orey, 2001).   Skype would allow students to engage in interactions with others outside of the classroom.  Webquests would provide my students with a way to work together in order to complete a project.  Through our course text, as well as the variety of resources used throughout this course, I have been able to add many new strategies to my repertoire, along with these tools.  Many of the strategies are ones that I use daily in the classroom (nonlinguistic representation, providing recognition and feedback), while others (advanced organizers, cooperative learning) are ones that I hope to utilize more in the future.  All in all, by bringing technology tools and strategies into the classroom provides an opportunity to differentiate instruction and change my classroom into a dynamic learning environment (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007).

As teachers, it is necessary to be lifelong learners.  Changing and adapting our instruction is part of this process.  Being a lifelong learner also requires us to set goals for our classrooms and our teaching.  One long-term change I would like to make in my own classroom is to begin to utilize the technology I have available to the fullest extent possible.  I currently have use of a SMART Board, iPad, and desktop computers.  The SMART Board is used mainly as a tool for instruction.  I would like, however, to begin to find ways in which I can use this incredible technology as more of a learning tool for my students.  My students have both cognitive and physical needs, but the SMART Board allows for accessibility beyond typical teaching tools.  Having my students use the SMART Board in order to create projects, communicate with others, and discover information on the Web would be a prime example of technology as a learning tool.  Looking into ways in which I can use this tool to the fullest – through SMART Tools, as well as Web resources for interactive whiteboards - would help me to do so.  I can also work on making my lessons as interactive as possible.  All students should be able to come up the screen and write, draw, or touch in order to participate in lessons.  Another long-term goal for my own classroom would be to focus on one or two of the research-based instructional strategies outlined in our resources.  This focus would span a whole school year, ensuring that my students would become as proficient as possible in participating in each strategy.  Because students need multiple opportunities to learn what they have to learn (Laureate Education Inc., 2011b), using different strategies in the classroom is extremely effective.  When working with students with special needs, it is especially critical that I narrow my focus to only one or two strategies to ensure that students master the material.  I am hoping to start using one strategy this upcoming school year, integrating the tech resources that have been provided in order to achieve success.

Technology is continuously impacting the way we impart knowledge in the classroom.  It is also changing the ways in which our students construct and build upon knowledge.  Teachers who bring technology into their classrooms are aware that it provides an opportunity to enhance instruction and change classrooms into dynamic learning environments (Pitler et al., 2007).  By reflecting on how we learn, the learning theories that support how we learn, and by using technology in the context of these learning theories (Laureate Education Inc., 2011a), teachers can begin to outline the strategies and tools needed to best support their students.  By integrating technology into both instruction and learning, students will be exposed to the many ways in which technology can enrich and enhance their lives. 

References

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011a). Program eight: Social learning theories [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011b). Program eleven: Instructional strategies, Part one [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011c). Program one: Understanding the brain [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011d). Program thirteen: Technology: Instructional tool vs. learning tool [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from
http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Connectivism and Social Learning in Practice

This week, we discussed the social learning theories that exist, as well as best practice strategies that are in support of these learning theories.  I found these theories to be especially relevant to not only my own classroom, but to the use of current technology for social networking.   The focal point of social learning theories is that students are actively engaged in constructing knowledge and sharing their knowledge with others (Laureate Education Inc., 2011a).

Cooperative learning is a strategy that focuses on having students interact with each other in groups in ways that enhance their learning (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007).  What connects this strategy to social learning is the fact that students are making meaning through interactions with group members.  When students are working collaboratively with their peers, learning can be so much more meaningful.

Cooperative learning also relates directly to many of the technology resources we use both in and out of the classroom.  Right now, by reading and posting a comment to my blog, you are engaging in cooperative learning.  I created meaning from what I had learned this week in class, constructed a blog entry, and will now have the opportunity for others to build upon what I have shared.  Practically every day, many of us use Facebook as a way to share information and connect to others.  A few Walden classes ago, we created a wiki with classmates by collaborating solely through the use of online tools.  I’m sure that in our own schools, we have also participated in professional development activities that involved making sense of new knowledge by interacting with our colleagues (Pitler et. al., 2007). 

There are so many ways in which cooperative learning strategies can also benefit students in the classroom.  Group work has been implemented by teachers for many years as a way to get students to learn and work together in order to achieve a goal.  Students become highly motivated and engaged when working with their peers.  Cooperative learning allows for students to “teach” one another, and by paring students with varying learning styles and abilities, we can ensure all students are involved and contributing to the good of the group.  Technology can play a unique and vital role in cooperative learning by facilitating group collaboration, providing structure for group work, and allowing group members to communicate both face-to-face and via technology (Pitler et. al., 2007).

Teachers can utilize a variety of social networking tools that students are familiar with and already using outside of the classroom.  Students can communicate via text or instant messaging, through Facebook, Twitter, or other social networking sites (I love Instagram for visual collaboration!).  WebQuests allow students to work together to use and evaluate information, while wikis allow them to create together and share artifacts – without ever being in the same room.  Other technologies such as Skype and FaceTime make it easier than ever to collaborate long distance.  This week, I was introduced to VoiceThread, which allow students to collaborate, learn, and share ideas with others from around the world (through text, pictures, and video).  Tools like these are prime examples of social constructivism - constructing knowledge based on culture and context (Orey, 2001), as well as connectivism - learning by forming and navigating networks of knowledge (Laureate Education Inc., 2011b).

In my own classroom, social learning is part of every lesson.  Because of the communication challenges my students face, I am always looking for ways in which I can get them to socialize and collaborate with their peers.  Social learning tools allow for my students to become engaged and excited to share with those around them.  Today I recorded of groups of students (using the video camera on my iPad) presenting the life cycle of a frog.  One member of the group was able to pull up and point to visuals on the SMART Board, while the other member read about (or used their communication device to present) each step of the cycle.  Afterwards, we watched the videos as a class.  They were so excited to see their themselves and I was able to provide instant encouragement and feedback (their peers did as well!).  I was then able to upload the videos to our class website to share with parents. 

Our world is changing at a rapid pace.  When our students get out into the work force, they will need cooperative learning skills in order to be successful.  Look at the way technology is rapidly changing the way we work, play, and communicate.  This makes it necessary for students to understand how to use tools (like those I have discussed) in order to continuously construct knowledge and understanding of the world around them (Laureate Education Inc., 2011a).  If we look at social learning as the primary way we learn (which I believe to be true – especially in relation to 21st century skills), teachers must be aware of the ways in which we can incorporate social learning tools into the classroom.

 I tried my hand at using VoiceThread this week!  It is an incredible tool that is extremely user-friendly (students of all ages and ability levels can use it!) and extremely relevant to the topic of social learning.  Here’s the link to my VoiceThread:

https://voicethread.com/share/3148610/

 I discuss the challenges we sometimes face when communicating with parents and getting them involved.  Feel free to comment or offer suggestions!

Here’s a great article that talks about how technology is changing 

the world around us (and mentions working collaboratively):  

It's a Flat World, After All

References

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011a). Program eight: Social learning theories [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

 Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011b). Program nine: Connectivism as a learning theory [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

 Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from 

          http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page Pitler, H.,

Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Constructivism in Practice

This week, constructionist and constructivist theories were the focus of our learning resources for EDUC 6711.  Learning the differences between the the two can help us better understand our role as teachers within both theories.  Constructivism is a theory of knowledge that is based upon individuals constructing his or her own meaning (Laureate Education Inc., 2011).  Constructivism takes into account all of the different experiences we have had in our lives, which causes us all to have different views on particular topics.  I understood it best when Dr. Orey gave the example of a chair.  We all know what chairs are, but how we visualize them in our minds is based on our own personal experiences.  Constructivism is not as critical for teachers in that we often have little control over the prior experiences and constructs that have been built in the minds of our students (besides those experiences that have occurred within our classrooms, of course).

Constructionism has a greater impact for both teachers and students.  This theory focuses on creation/sharing of external artifacts in order to facilitate learning (Laureate Education Inc., 2011).  In a constructionist environment, we as teachers act as a guide; our students investigate, create, and solve problems.  This theory also uses problem-based instruction in order to solve real-world issues.  Students can focus on the “bigger picture”, while looking towards to the sources and data that will assist them in inquiring about their world.

So how can we tie these theories to the instructional strategies we utilize in the classroom?  The resources that we looked at this week provided a multitude of activities that help can create a constructionist environment within our classrooms.  Let’s take a look at the ways in which students can solve problems using inquiry-based methodologies…

When we think about students “generating and testing hypotheses”, we most often think of scientific concepts, but this strategy can apply to all content areas (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007).  When using this strategy, students are engaging in higher-order thinking in order to solve/create solutions to a given problem/issue.  Teachers can provide students with multiple strategies (Orey, 2001), as well as a variety of structured tasks to guide students through the generating and testing of their hypotheses.  This correlates to the teacher’s role as a facilitator in the constructionist classroom. 

Technology can be the ultimate facilitator when it comes to giving our students multiple ways to test and create.  The wonderful thing about technology is that it allows students to spend more time interpreting data, rather than gathering data (Pitler, et. al., 2007).  Spreadsheets can make it simple for students to input data and see instant results – allowing the focus to be on the result and its relation to the problem at hand, rather than on the laborious process of inputting data and solving formulas.  Data collection tools further allow students to inquire about a topic.  Teachers of all subjects can use these tools in order to enhance the curriculum (Pitler, et. al., 2007).  The Internet is a data collection tool that most students use every day – whether to get the answer to a homework problem or to research a project or paper.  Students use critical-thinking in order to narrow down a topic, then let the Internet search a vast array of written, as well as nonlinguistic information (videos, charts, photos, etc.) for them to draw upon.  Again making it easier for students to solve/investigate/inquire, rather than spend their time searching through less-accessible resources. 

Web resources and software that simulates real-life situations are another form of learning that stems from the ideals of constructionism.  With simulation games and software, students are able to take their own beliefs and prior knowledge and use it to guide them through a variety of simulated contexts.  Not only are simulations exciting and motivating for students, they provide them with an experience that is authentic, yet may be impossible for the students to experience first-hand (Pitler et. al, 2007).  Simulations and gaming software also allow students to create and discover solutions to problems within a simulated environment.  In my own classroom for students with significant learning needs, I use simulation websites and software that focus on life and social skills.  My students enjoy money simulation activities by Visa.  PBS Kids also has a page devoted to middle school-age students with simulations that cover topics like bullying, spending money, and what to do when staying home alone.  I also found a great list of apps for iPod/iPad that allow kids to create and engage in kid-friendly simulations.  Check out the list at Commom Sense Media.

When I look at my own classroom, I can see firsthand the impact of constructionism.  When students are actively engaged in the learning process, through real-world application of skills that take them beyond the content standards, learning is greatly increased.  When you add technology, the same activities, simulations, and experiments become significantly more accessible and user-friendly.  They allow students to gather data and search for information with ease, from sources that are at their fingertips.  Instructional strategies, like those I have discussed, embody the theory of constructivism and constructionism.  And technology allows our students to experience maximum these learning strategies through first-hand experiences.

 

References

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Program seven: Constructionist and constructivist learning theories [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology.  Retrieved from 

          http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works.     
          Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Cognitivism in Practice

On our quest to discover the tools that help our students store and apply the information that we teach, it is critical to first look at the theories of cognitive learning.  These theories make it easier to understand the physiological mechanisms that are responsible for learning and storing information (Laureate Education Inc., 2011a). Technology plays a huge role in executing the principles of cognitive learning theory.  Technology-based cognitive tools allow students to interact with information in order to acquire, synthesize, create, and share new knowledge (Orey, 2001).

In order to teach for understanding (while embedding technology), there are certain steps we need to take.  The first step is finding out what our students already know - i.e. what they have stored in their long- and short-term memory.  We need to activate their background knowledge and facilitate the process of connecting new information to what they already know so that they begin to see patterns and understand processes (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007).  Their long-term memory can contain connections that include facts and information (declarative memory), how to do certain things (procedural), or events that have taken place in their lives (episodic) (Laureate Education Inc., 2011).  A great instructional strategy for activating this knowledge is a KWL chart.  We can find out what students already know about a topic, while checking for their understanding throughout the lesson.  KWL charts also utilize cuing and questioning strategies – both of which can trigger students’ memories to access prior knowledge (Laureate Education Inc., 2011a).  In my own classroom, KWL charts are an extremely motivating tool for my students.  When a KWL template is displayed on the SMART Board, students love to share their knowledge on topic at hand  (this week it was the properties of matter!).  The questioning strategies that I use while we complete the KWL chart can be modified to elicit responses from students that have even the most significant learning needs.  I can also tailor questions for specific students based on my background knowledge of them (i.e. I can ask more in-depth questions during a lesson on Mexican culture to a student who visited Cancun over spring break).  Visuals (dual-coding) can also be incorporated into a KWL chart as a form of non-linguisitic representation (absolutely a must for my non-readers).  ReadWriteThink has a great tool for creating online KWL charts.

We should then look at how to enhance our instruction, while helping students make lasting connections from one concept to another.  The elaboration component of cognitive learning theory looks at connecting small concepts to larger ones, while the network model aids students in organizing these connections (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a).  Our resources this week focused on concept-mapping as one of the best ways for students to make these connections.  With concept maps, students can use a “focus question” to specify a particular problem, then connect a multitude of concepts (from general to complex) to the focus question (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011b).  A variety of websites allow student students to create interactive webs, maps, and graphic organizers.  I love the variety of interactive organizers on the Holt website.  These tools allow students to use technology as a cognitive tool to learn “with” as opposed to “from” (Orey, 2001).  

Another critical component of finding instructional tools that correlate with cognitive learning is the creation of episodic events and the use of visuals.  We are all aware of the benefits to using pictures, video, and audio with our students.  In my own classroom, the impact is nothing short of amazing.  Sometimes all it takes is a short video clip or a photo on the SMART Board to make an idea or concept latch on to my students.  Can we blame them?  Who wouldn’t learn more about the rainforest after taking a virtual field trip to a jungle in Brazil?  Technology tools, such as virtual field trips, give us the opportunity to “go” where we physically cannot (Laureate Education Inc., 2011b).  When students are immersed in content – when they see, hear, and touch what is being taught – the connections being made are stronger and “episodes” are created in their memory.  Teacher Tap has great list of virtual and digital field trips that I found to be awesome for my middle school students with special needs.

Before utilizing any learning tool in classroom, it is important for teachers to consider a few factors.  Will the tools we use force students to activate prior knowledge, while constructing new knowledge?  Will instruction create “episodes” in our students’ brains by which information can be stored long-term?  And, as with most tools we use in the classroom, we need to be sure that we are reaching out to the variety of learning styles and preferences that exist amongst our student population.  Photos, videos, and virtual field trips are motivating and engaging tools that exemplify Palvo’s Dual-Coding Hypothesis – helping students to store information in both visuals and text (Laureate Education Inc., 2011a).  If we look at these factors as we plan each and every lesson, we will find that technology can meet each of these needs for learning.  By pairing our knowledge of the cognitive learning theories with the technology we use in the classroom (and in life!), our students will make the lasting connections that exemplify cognitivism in practice.

References

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011a). Program five: Cognitive learning theory [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011b). Program six: Spotlight on technology: Virtual field trips [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.